(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS

[Dave Lebling]

Actually it is much more impressive. The "IBM" photo created by using a 
scanning tunneling electron microscope to move xenon atoms around on a 
metal substrate is about 30 years old. A xenon atom is on the order of 
100 picometres (10 ^ -12 metres) in size (I don't know the number 
exactly). An electron is at least 1000 and possibly even 1,000,000 times 
smaller. In fact, there is really no reason to believe electrons have 
any sort of small hard point-mass type existence at all. If they do it 
is smaller than 10 ^ -18 metres.

So, imaging an electron is a significantly harder thing than imaging an 
array of xenon atoms.

As to the second point, Plato's Cave is an old and well-worn thing. 
Everything we see is "enhanced" so that the human brain can construct an 
image. This happens in the eyes first, and continues in the visual 
cortex. Does anyone on the list doubt the reality of telescopic images 
because they have been "enhanced"?

To get back to the topic of Wolfe, he is clearly an engineer (and 
"scientist" in the lay sense) who also happens to believe in God (though 
in a heretical way, or so he says). Some on the list seem to be arguing 
that science is useless or on a par with religious belief in terms of 
provability. I doubt Wolfe would agree. Science is provable, religion is 
all about faith: believing the unprovable. In tBotLS, Silk repeatedly 
wrestles with the idea that his enlightenment might have been a brain 
aneurysm rather than a true revelation. He ultimately decides that it 
doesn't matter.

Dave Lebling

On 12/23/2011 10:32 AM, Lee Berman wrote:
> Heh, yep. Not to detract from the coolness of Dave's link! It is on a par with that
> photo spelling of "IBM" with atoms.
>
> But I think it is an important part of retaining our essential humanity to remember that
> Dave's link is not "seeing an electron" but rather seeing a photo of an electron. A photo
> which, even with the best intentions of veracity has been enhanced so that human eyes may
> perceive the image in a way which makes sense to our brains.
>
>